For the edification of all devoted "Equalites", let me point out that homosexual people have the same right to marry people of the opposite gender that heterosexual people have.

If you want to hijack marriage to support perverted (see the dictionary) lifestyles, why can't I have the right to marry a giraffe? Why can't I marry my dog? Why can't I marry a 9-year old? Why can't I marry my mother? Don't I have the same right as homosexual people to marry whom I choose?

Answer that. Don't just explain that I'm an asshole. That's not an answer. That's stepping around an answer you don't have.

For the edification of all devoted "Equalites", let me point out that homosexual people have the same right to marry people of the opposite gender that heterosexual people have.

Again, I can see why someone who believes that anyone can decide to be gay or straight might think this is valid. And we've established that you are heterosexual only by force of will.

It's simple. A significant minority of the population is born with an attraction to the same gender. While they may have the right to marry the opposite sex, there will be no sexual attraction in that marriage for them. So a law prohibiting same-sex marriage does not afford them the right to marry a person to whom they are sexually attracted, as it does straight people.

If you want to hijack marriage to support perverted (see the dictionary) lifestyles, why can't I have the right to marry a giraffe? Why can't I marry my dog? Why can't I marry a 9-year old?

Simple. Neither a giraffe, your dog, or a nine year old is capable of making a reasoned decision to marry you. Marriage has to be consensual.

Why can't I marry my mother?

Is it your opinion that there are people who are born with the ability to be attracted only to their own mother? I don't think so, although I'm convinced that there are people born who are only capable of being attracted to the same gender.

Answer that. Don't just explain that I'm an asshole. That's not an answer. That's stepping around an answer you don't have.

I gave you my answer. It doesn't mean you aren't an asshole, but I didn't call you one. In fact, the only time I called you an asshole was in response to a comment in which you yourself acknowledged being one. You'd think you'd have more appreciation when someone agrees with you.

That’s a studied response and a good one. It’s good enough to demand an amplification of my position.

Individual rights do not exist in a vacuum. They are included in a gigantic tapestry of human interaction. Often, one valid element within this tapestry runs afoul of another. This is why a sober analysis must assign each element a position in a hierarchy of concerns.

The welfare and survival of the species trumps individual rights. This is why you cannot own nuclear weapons or yell, “Fire” in a crowded theater, despite your right to free speech.

On the issue of gay marriage, we cannot make the assumption that enough people will remain heterosexual to keep the species alive. If we grant the right to one, we must grant the right to all. Therefore, in weighing the matter, we must ask ourselves what would happen if ALL people were homosexual. The answer makes it clear that the welfare of the species must trump the individual rights of citizens to marry whom they wish. Marriage is a formal testament that glorifies the one and only union between people that will produce offspring. In effect, it is a statement from our elders explaining how we must behave in order for humanity to continue.

The argument cannot be distilled to a simple case of individual rights and who has them. It’s much, much larger than that.

[QUOTE[On the issue of gay marriage, we cannot make the assumption that enough people will remain heterosexual to keep the species alive. [/quote]That's where we differ. I think we can easily make that assumption.

You have an inordinate fear of cultural influence over the basic biological imperatives that rule truly heterosexual people (who constitute most of the population). Simply put, they're born with an overwhelming urge to put a sperm and an egg together. That translates into an intense desire to engage in heterosexual sex.

Your fear that cultural forces will totally override the basic biological urge to continue the species is irrational and unsupported empirically.

Therefore, in weighing the matter, we must ask ourselves what would happen if ALL people were homosexual.

Then, of course, we should be asking ourselves what would happen if all people used birth control? Routine availability of effective birth control has vastly more effect on the birth rate than anything else.

Do you propose banning all birth control to assure the survival of the species? There's far more evidence to support that position.

So if you are serious in opposing gay marriage solely due to it's impact on survival of the species, you should be even more of an advocate of banning birth control.

On the issue of gay marriage, we cannot make the assumption that enough people will remain heterosexual to keep the species alive.

That's where we differ. I think we can easily make that assumption.

You have an inordinate fear of cultural influence over the basic biological imperatives that rule truly heterosexual people (who constitute most of the population). Simply put, they're born with an overwhelming urge to put a sperm and an egg together. That translates into an intense desire to engage in heterosexual sex.

Your fear that cultural forces will totally override the basic biological urge to continue the species is irrational and unsupported empirically.

Therefore, in weighing the matter, we must ask ourselves what would happen if ALL people were homosexual.

Then, of course, we should be asking ourselves what would happen if all people used birth control? Routine availability of effective birth control has vastly more effect on the birth rate than anything else.

Do you propose banning all birth control to assure the survival of the species? There's far more evidence to support that position.

So if you are serious in opposing gay marriage solely due to it's impact on survival of the species, you should be even more of an advocate of banning birth control.

You have an inordinate fear of cultural influence over the basic biological imperatives that rule truly heterosexual people (who constitute most of the population). Simply put, they're born with an overwhelming urge to put a sperm and an egg together. That translates into an intense desire to engage in heterosexual sex.

Do I hear you explaining that there is a "natural" and an "Unnatural" way of having sex?

Your argument about the correspondence of birth control pills and gay marriage fails to consider several elements of the debate.

(1) Birth control pills are designed for people who choose to avoid having children. Gay marriage is for people who wish to raise and indoctrinate children in a lifestyle that is, according to you, unnatural.

(2) Birth control pills only impact the person who swallows them. Gay marriage puts in place a social standard that, in the long-term, may be harmful to the species.

(3) One can dispatch the effect of birth control pills by simply throwing away the bottle. There's no stepping away from the damage done by gay marriage.

(4) One calls for the individual activity of the user. The other demands the alteration of a society's values and the denigration of an institution as ancient as Man's history.

(5) I condone birth control pills, because over-population is devastating to the human future and the pill is an effective method of controlling it. At the moment, population is down-trending, but with the pill we can turn that around overnight. Gay marriage, meanwhile, threatens to put that downward trend into an irreversible spiral. Not so good.

Do I hear you explaining that there is a "natural" and an "Unnatural" way of having sex?

No. I merely said that the great majority of people are born with a biological urge to have heterosexual sex. A small but significant minority are born with an attraction to the same sex.

If it helps you feel better about making what is essentially a moral judgment by calling it unnatural, go for it. However, you either missed my point or you're being deliberately obtuse.

There is absolutely no danger that allowing same-sex marriage will result in everyone deciding they'd rather be gay. Perhaps you (and Marcus Bachmann) believe that people can change their sexual orientation as quickly as you pivot from the libertarian right to the moral majority, but no empirical evidence backs you up.

When you say "we cannot make the assumption that enough people will remain heterosexual" you certainly give the impression that you find homosexuality inherently more attractive than heterosexuality.

When you say "we cannot make the assumption that enough people will remain heterosexual" you certainly give the impression...blah blah blah..

That's the second time you've quoted that sentence out of context. You should read the paragraph from which this is excerpted again...carefully. I think you don't realize taking it out of context completely altered its meaning. Let me rephrase:

When we make laws, we cannot rely upon "most people" doing anything. We must provide for the possibility that such an assumption will be entirely inaccurate.

Suppose, for instance, we legalize bank robbery based on the premise that very few people will do it whether it's legal or not? Suppose we legalize murder based on that assumption There is simply no way to guess accurately what "most people" are going to do. Our laws must consider a worst case scenario because we give the rights to EVERYONE when we create law that applies to all.

It is folly to legalize gay marriage based on the premise that a minority of people will practice it, whether it's legal or not. Before creating such law, we must consider what would happen if EVERYONE married gay.

[QUOTE}When we make laws, we cannot rely upon "most people" doing anything. We must provide for the possibility that such an assumption will be entirely inaccurate. [/quote]

It is folly to legalize gay marriage based on the premise that a minority of people will practice it, whether it's legal or not. Before creating such law, we must consider what would happen if EVERYONE married gay.

Even though everyone agrees that it won't happen. Nothing but a pure rationalization.

Time to start whispering to the holy ghost, padre. You've joined the Pat Robertson team.

2) Birth control pills only impact the person who swallows them. Gay marriage puts in place a social standard that, in the long-term, may be harmful to the species.

How, can you explain, does Gay Marriage cause any issue on a species wide scale that could possibly be harmful? They don't breed, they don't raise future generations of gay children. Even a good portion of the adopted children of gay parents are straight. I believe that the percentages are about the same as for hetero parents.

Allowing people who are homosexual to marry has zero impact on us as a species. Not allowing it, however, does. It means that one group is set aside from the rest as abnormal or wrong. It's much like the Caste system in India.. the untouchables who are treated as less than human simply by dint of their existance.

Allowing people who are homosexual to marry has zero impact on us as a species

.

Since we’ve never done it, I can't imagine how you came by that information.

Not allowing it, however, does. It means that one group is set aside from the rest as abnormal or wrong.

Labeling homosexuality as abnormal and wrong is the entire point of preventing same-sex marriage. It IS abnormal by the sheer weight of numbers. And wishful thinking or sparing someone’s feelings won’t change that. If you are born with only one arm, you are abnormal, and finding a less offensive, less hurtful identifier won’t change the fact that you are NOT normal. If homosexuality becomes "normal", we will, indeed, be in big trouble.

I don’t think anyone should feel compelled to be “normal”. But some abnormal activity is harmful to the welfare of the species. Everyone on this planet is the result of a heterosexual union. That must be the right and normal way to conduct our business. It provides for a continuation of human life. Alternative lifestyles that fail to do that cannot be right, unless you advocate the extinction of humanity.

If it’s okay for SOME people to lead gay lifestyles, then it must be okay for all. And what will we have if we ALL lead a gay lifestyle? We will have the end of humanity and if anything can be established as “wrong”, that must be it.

Please remember, I did not suggest we’d all die if we allowed gay marriage. I did not suggest humans would stop reproducing if we allowed gay marriage. I merely mean to say it’s a mistake to treat it as “normal”, legally sanction it and, thereby, encourage it. And I mean to say the reasonable barometer for what is right and what is wrong must be its impact on the future of the species. We were not born to reproduce by homosexual unions, and gentler language will not make us so.